OM PAL SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
OM PAL SINGH
State And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
Tarun Agarwala, J. -
(1.) J.C. Pandey, the learned counsel. Lalit Miglani, the learned Brief Holder. for the State.
(2.) The petitioners husband was appointed as a Constable on 8th February, 1978. While he was in service, he was charge-sheeted and departmental proceedings were initiated against him, in which the charges against the petitioners husband were proved, namely, that he had consumed liquor while on duty and misbehaved with another constable. On the basis of this finding, an order of dismissal was passed on 11th February, 1988. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners husband preferred a revision, which was also dismissed. The petitioners husband thereafter approached the Public Service Tribunal and the claim application was also rejected. The petitioners husband, thereafter, filed Writ Petition No. 5264 of 2001 (S/S) and, during its pendency, the petitioners husband died. The petitioner applied for substitution, which was allowed and, the writ petition was partly allowed by a judgment dated 2nd April, 2004. The court found that the charges stood proved against the petitioners husband but held that the punishment awarded to the petitioners husband did not commensurate with the misconduct. The court, accordingly, converted the order of dismissal into an order of compulsory retirement. The court, accordingly, directed the respondents that the benefits arising from the decision as well as the post retirement benefits, if the petitioner is eligible, be released. Based on the said order, the petitioner applied for post retirement dues, which was rejected by an order dated 11th June, 2004. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned brief holder for the State and having perused the impugned order, the courts find that the claim for the post retirement dues has been rejected on the ground that in view of Rule 56(c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, the petitioners husband was not over 50 years of age, and was, consequently, not entitled for any post retirement benefits, since he could not be compulsory retired.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.